MEG RAJ (DEAD) THR. L.RS. & ORS. versus MANPHOOL(DEAD) THR. L.RS. & ORS. on 15 March 2019

[2019] 5 S.C.R. 1

MEG RAJ (DEAD) THR. L.RS. & ORS.

v.

MANPHOOL(DEAD) THR. L.RS. & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No.7426 of 2011)MARCH 15, 2019

[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND

DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]

Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 – s.26 – Bar ofJurisdiction – Suit land was subjected to ceiling under the Act andthe prescribed authority had passed an order in relation to the suitland – Two civil suits were filed by the two sets of persons claiminginterest in the suit land – High Court held that both civil suits werebarred and thus, were not triable by the civil court in the light ofexpress bar contained in s.26 of the Act – Held: s.26(b) of the Actclearly bars filing of civil suit to examine the legality of the orderpassed by the prescribed authority under the Act – In other words,the civil court’s jurisdiction is expressly taken away by s.26(b) ofthe Act from examining the legality of orders under the Act – Thus,the High Court was justified in dismissing the appellants’ suits asbeing barred by virtue of the bar contained in s.26 of the Act –Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.9.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. The High Court was justified in holding that boththe civil suits were barred and thus were not triable by the CivilCourt in the light of express bar contained in Section 26 of theHaryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. [Para 17] [4-E]

2. Mere perusal of the plaint in both the civil suits wouldgo to show that the plaintiffs (appellants) had challenged thereinthe legality of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority underthe Act and prayed that the order be declared null and void.[Para 18] [5-A-B]

3. Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 providesthat the Courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil natureexcepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly orimpliedly barred. [Para 19] [5-B-C]

1

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A4. Section 26 (b) of the Act clearly bars filing of civil suit toexamine the legality of the order passed by the PrescribedAuthority under the Act. In other words, the Civil Court’sjurisdiction is expressly taken away by Section 26(b) of the Actfrom examining the legality of orders passed under the Act. Theremedy of the plaintiffs in such case lies in filing appeal/revisionBunder Section 18 of the Act against the order of the PrescribedAuthority. [Para 20] [5-C-D]

Dhulabhai v. State of M.P. AIR 1969 SC 78 :[1968] 3 SCR 662 – referred to.

Case Law Reference

C

[1968] 3 SCR 662 referred toPara 20

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7426of 2011.D

From the Judgment and Order dated 28.01.2008 of the HighCourt of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No. 40 of 1984

With

Civil Appeal No. 3145 of 2019.E

Ms. Manju Jetley, Adv. for the Appellants.

K. K. Mohan, Dr. Monika Gusain, Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted in S.L.P.(c)No.9723/2009.

2. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and orderdated 28.01.2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana atChandigarh in R.S.A. Nos.40/1984 & 2712/1987 whereby the High Courtdismissed R.S.A. No.40 of 1984 and allowed R.S.A. No.2712 of 1987.G

3. A few facts need mention for the disposal of these appeals,which involve a short point. The facts are taken from R.S.A. No.40/1984 which arose out of C.S. No.24-C/1979.

4. The appellants are the legal representatives of the originalplaintiffs and the respondents are the legal representatives of originaldefendants in the Civil suit No.24-C/1979 & Civil Suit No.62-C/1979out of which these appeals arise.

5. The dispute relates to 4/5[th] share in the land measuring 643Bighas and 4 Biswas situated in village Umedpura, District Sirsa, Stateof Haryana (hereinafter referred to as “the suit land”). The suit landwas subjected to ceiling proceedings under the Haryana Ceiling on LandHoldings Act, 1972 (for short, “the Act”) wherein the Prescribed Authorityhad passed an order dated 17.10.1978 in relation to the suit land.

6. This led to filing of two civil suits by two sets of persons claiminginterest in the suit land. One civil suit was C.S. No. 24-C of 1979 andother was C.S. No. 62-C of 1979.

7. So far as C.S. No. 24-C of 1979 is concerned, it was filed bythe plaintiffs in the Court of Sub-Judge III Class, Sirsa, against thedefendants. In this suit, the plaintiffs sought a declaration that the orderdated 17.10.1978 passed by the Prescribed Authority under the Act isnull and void. The Trial Court, by judgment/decree dated 06.11.1981,dismissed the suit as being barred.

8. The plaintiffs felt aggrieved and filed first appeal (C.A.421-C/83) in the Court of Additional District Judge, Sirsa. By Judgment dated17.09.1983, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and upheldthe judgment/decree of the Trial Court.

9. The plaintiffs then carried the matter in appeal (R.S.A.No.40/1984) against the judgment/decree of the First Appellate Court in theHigh Court of Punjab &Haryana at Chandigarh.

10. So far as C.S. No. 62-C of 1979 is concerned, it was filed byother set of plaintiffs. It was filed in the Court of Sub-Judge 1[st] Class,Sirsa against other set of defendants, though it was also in relation to thesame suit land, which was the subject of C.S. No.24-C of 1979. In thissuit also, the plaintiffs sought a declaration that the order dated 17.10.1978passed by the Prescribed Authority under the Act is null and void but theTrial Court, by judgment/decree dated 15.04.1985, decreedthe suit.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

11. The defendants felt aggrieved and filed first appeal (C.A.77-C/85) in the Court of Additional District Judge, Sirsa. By judgment dated23.07.1987, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. Thedefendants felt aggrieved and carried the matter in appeal (R.S.A.No.2712/1987) in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.

A

B12. Both the second appeals were clubbed together for theirdisposal.

13. By a common impugned order dated 28.01.2008, the HighCourt dismissed R.S.A. No. 40/1984 which arose out of C.S. No.24-C/79 and allowed RSA No. 2712/1987 which arose out of C.S. No. 62-C/C1979 giving rise to filing of these appeals by special leave by the plaintiffsof both the civil suits mentioned above in this Court.

14. So, the short question involved in the present appeals is whetherthe High Court was justified in dismissing R.S.A. No.40/1984 and allowingR.S.A. No. 2712/1987.D

15. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

16. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusalof the record of the case, we find no merit in these appeals.

17. In our considered opinion, the High Court was justified in holdingthat both the civil suits were barred and thus were not triable by the CivilECourt in the light of express bar contained in Section 26 of the Act.Section 26 of the Act reads as under:

“26. Bar of Jurisdiction – (1) No civil court shall havejurisdiction to- F(a) entertain or proceed with a suit for specific performanceof a contract for transfer of land which affects the right ofthe State Government to the surplus area under this Act;or

(b) settle, decide or deal with any matter which is under thisGAct required to be settled, decided or dealt with by theFinancial Commissioner, the Commissioner, the Collectoror the Prescribed Authority.

(2) No order of the Financial Commissioner, theCommissioner, the Collector or the prescribed authorityH

made under or in pursuance of this Act shall be called inquestion in any court.”

18. Mere perusal of the plaint in both the civil suits would go toshow that the plaintiffs (appellants) had challenged therein the legalityof the order dated 17.10.1978 passed by the Prescribed Authority underthe Act and prayed that the order dated 17.10.2018 be declared null andvoid.

19. Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 provides that theCourts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature excepting suitsof which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.

20. Section 26 (b) of the Act clearly bars filing of civil suit toexamine the legality of the order passed by the Prescribed Authorityunder the Act. In other words, the Civil Court’s jurisdiction is expresslytaken away by Section 26(b) of the Act from examining the legality oforders passed under the Act. The remedy of the plaintiffs in such caselies in filing appeal/revision under Section 18 of the Act against the orderof the Prescribed Authority. (See Dhulabhai vs. State of M.P., AIR1969 SC 78)

21. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the consideredopinion that the High Court was justified in dismissing the appellants’suits as being barred by virtue of the bar contained in Section 26 of theAct. We concur with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by theHigh Court finding no case to interfere in the impugned order in theseappeals.

22. The appeals are, therefore, devoid of any merit. They areaccordingly dismissed.

Ankit Gyan

Appeals dismissed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H